Randomized Controlled Trial: Split-dose and Same-day Large Volume Bowel Preparation for Afternoon Colonoscopy Have Similar Quality of Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: We compare bowel cleanliness in patients taking same-day versus split-dose 4-L polyethylene glycol laxative for afternoon colonoscopy. Secondary objectives included patient satisfaction, adverse effects and patient tolerability. BACKGROUND: Afternoon colonoscopies have been associated with inadequate bowel preparation and lower adenoma detection rates. Same-day (morning) or split-dosing of the laxative have improved preparation quality but differences between these options are unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center prospective randomized endoscopist blinded trial. Patients aged 18 years and above prescribed 4-L polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy were randomized into same-day or split-dose preparation. Preparation quality was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Patient satisfaction and side effects was collected using a questionnaire. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (158 split-dose, 142 same-day) were evaluated. No statistically significant difference was seen on total Ottawa score among the groups (P=0.47) or by individual colonic segments in intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Patients in split-dose group were more likely to complete the entire preparation (P=0.01) but reported more sleep loss (P=0.001). The same-day preparation group reported higher incidence of vomiting (P=0.036). Patients ingesting bowel preparation ≥7 hours before colonoscopy had higher total Ottawa scores (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in quality of preparation in patients taking same-day versus split-dose preparation for afternoon colonoscopy. Those receiving same-day preparation were less likely to lose sleep but more likely to have emesis. These differences should be considered when selecting a bowel preparation regimen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".